2015 (1) TMI 234 - HC - Income Tax

Difference in cost of construction - Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made on account of difference in the cost of construction as disclosed by the respondent as against valued by the DVO Held that - Following the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax-II Versus Vijaykumar D. Gupta 2014 (4) TMI 860 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - the AO could not have made reference to the DVO without reference to the books of accounts and such reliance on the DVO s books of accounts was not justified - there was no material, what to say an incriminating material, in the possession of the Revenue Department - while making the reference to the Valuation Officer, the AO has not recorded any defect in the books of account nor has he rejected the same - except for the difference in the estimated cost determined by the Valuation Officer and the actual cost as shown by the assessee, the AO has not brought any material on record to establish that the assessee had made any unaccounted investment in the construction of the building and that the books of account do not reflect the correct cost of construction thus, the report made by the Valuation Officer pursuant to such an invalid reference could not have been made the basis for addition u/s 69 - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding addition to income based on cost of construction discrepancy.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's order adding the difference in cost of construction to the income of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) had earlier deleted this addition, which was confirmed by the Tribunal. The appellant contended that the tribunal erred in allowing the deletion of the cost difference.

2. The substantial question of law framed for consideration was whether the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition made on account of the difference in cost of construction. The Court referred to a previous decision involving a similar issue and observed that the Assessing Officer had not rejected the books of accounts before referring to the District Valuation Officer. The Tribunal had deleted the addition based on the lack of incriminating evidence found during a search, which did not support the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

3. The Court cited previous judgments and legal principles to support its decision. It highlighted that the Assessing Officer should reject the books of accounts before referring to the Valuation Officer. In this case, there was no evidence of unaccounted investment in construction, and the Assessing Officer had not shown any defect in the books of accounts. Therefore, the reference to the Valuation Officer was considered invalid, and the addition based on that reference was deemed baseless.

4. The Court concluded that the issue in the present case was covered by its earlier decision. It agreed with the Tribunal's view and ruled against the department, dismissing all appeals in favor of the assessee. The judgment emphasized the importance of following legal procedures and evidentiary requirements before making additions to income based on valuation reports.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the Court's reasoning, application of legal principles, and the ultimate decision in favor of the assessee based on the lack of proper evidence and procedural irregularities in the assessment process.